Beginner HDR, the good, the bad and the range

sirch

sirch

Lu-Tze
Admin
Messages
104,495
Name
The other Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry if this has been done-to-death before but I have decided to start taking my photography a lot more seriously and I've been mooching around a few forums and tutorials and I have seen the odd comment that suggests that some people don't like HDR (high dynamic range) shots. I'm pretty convinced that our pro photographer at work uses HDR and has produced some stunning shots with it and it is something I am (or was) keen on developing as a technique, so is it acceptable, if not what are the objections?

Assuming some HDR is acceptable how far is it reasonable to push it, what sort of exposure range should I reasonably be going for?
 
I quite like HDR so don't be afraid of using the technique.

You will find some who aren't quite enamoured with the technique but it is all down to taste. I think in general you should not be too extreme, although you will at the first few attempts.

Get snapping and have fun. (y)
 
I don't have anything against HDR as a technique, it's some of the photos that I dislike. If you use it to produce an image that looks close to real life, then the results can be beautiful. However there are a lot of HDR photos out there that are pushed way too far (IMO!). Other people love that look, and that's fair enough, one of the beauties of photography is that it is very subjective. When I first got serious about landscapes I used to really overdo HDR, but now I look back at those photos and really cringe lol.
 
I don't understand those who appear to dismiss all HDR shots. It is just another pp technique and as with any it is possible to overdo it. Go to extremes with any editor and you will get a load of kak.

Done well I think it should not be noticeable, but everyone to their own.

Good point from Norkie about first attempts going too far. Whenever I have a photo clear out I find early HDR shots and am embarrassed by what I have done.

Dave
 
Thanks for the input, I'll try to keep it reasonable ;)
 
Tringa said:
Whenever I have a photo clear out I find early HDR shots and am embarrassed by what I have done.
Click to expand...

I believe that is a time in every photographers life known as the "HDR hole" :)



Stages-of-a-Photographer.png
 
In all seriousness, I don't think there really are any "limits" with it. if you like the image that HDR gives, then go for it. Screw what everyone else thinks :)
 
There's nothing wrong with HDR as a technique. The problems tend to occur when it's done badly, like any technique you can get it wrong.
  • Some scenes suit HDR better than others. There has to be a high dynamic range in the scene for HDR to work, a good example is a church interior.
  • HDR won't fix poor composition and an image/scene that started out with no interest. Typical boring scenes presented as My First HDR (tm) include the shed at the bottom of your garden and your car.
  • If you don't capture enough image data the results will be poor, a three-shot auto-bracketed sequence does not make a good HDR. If the scene did have a high dynamic range three shots won't have captured it all, if three shots does capture the dynamic rage the scene didn't have a high dynamic range. If I go back to the church interior scenario, you'll typically need 6-7 shots 2-stops apart or 12-14 shots 1-stop apart to capture all the data you need. The brightest exposure should have no blocked shadows, the darkest exposure should have no blown highlights.
  • Whilst you can tone-map a single exposure, it will never be HDR.
  • Over-sharpening and over-saturating are bad enough on their own, but combine them with each other and HDR and you'll make people's eyes bleed. This, combined with over-processed image data (because not enough frames were captured to start with) is what gives HDR a bad name.
  • HDR will show up every defect in your lens and sensor. Keep to the optimum apertures for your lens (no f/22 landscapes) and make sure your sensor is clean.
  • Tone-mapping (the process of turning HDR data into something that can be displayed) inevitably flattens an image by removing the visual clues (shadows and highlights) that the viewer interprets as depth and dimensionality. Contrast is closely linked to perceptions of sharpness, and HDR can create an impression of softness in an image. Don't over-process the shadows, layering the shadows back onto a tone-mapped image can put back the perception of depth, dimensionality and sharpness.
 
Alastair - thanks for taking the time to post that, really useful.
 
I'm a fan of HDR but I look at it as a form of art rather than photography as such.
For me a photo has to look as close the subject did once pp is done but with HDR, I don't mind seeing things taken to an extreme providing that they work for the image.
I like the fact that with digital photography it can potentially bring out the artist in a person and even help an artist to be even more creative when it comes to HDR.

I've just rememeber this, I have used it a lot with landscapes and it's a good alternative to using HDR
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/resources/contrast-masking-an-hdr-alternative.82/
 
Last edited:
Seen a few tutorials on that technique and it looks useful if there is detail in the over/under exposed parts that can be brought out.
 
HDR is the next big thing in TV and films. The problem with current HDR photography is that you don't have an HDR screen, so you rely on a tone map back to SDR for display.

Cameras are available that can capture 15 stops + at 50 frames per second and screen technology is starting to appear. Give it 5 years and you'll have a screen capable of a couple of thousand nits with deep blacks and you can throw away the tone mapping software.
 
Trouble is with HDR that many do not no when and when not to use it, they just do everything HDR and there really is no need when the conditions (Especially Outdoors) don't require it. It is not just a case of setting AEB and shoot away and hope for the best then going home and sort through what maybe hundreds of images, that IMO is just a waist of time and effort both in the shootoing and the PP.
Have a look at this on youtube I found it very interesting and worth just over an hour of time on a wet day when inside is better than out!!!

Russ
 
Good video, bit of a sales pitch but some useful stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top